Abstract
Oral Bible Stories (OBS) are retellings of stories that occur in the Bible. They create a bridge between the world of the Bible and the world of the receptor language, incorporating, excluding, and changing parts of stories as found in the Bible by their very design. Our first encounters as consultants with these stories left us wondering about the borders: What sort of changes are to be avoided and what sort are beneficial? Taking as a starting point the case study of an OBS consultant-check of a language in the Caucasus, this paper presents guidelines for omissions and additions.
1. Introduction
My own (Erwin’s) first acquaintance with Oral Bible Stories (OBS) was in 2016, when I was invited to take part as a “kind of consultant” in supporting several teams from a related organisation. My experience as exegetical checker in Russia immediately had me searching for omissions and additions in the stories I was asked to look at. But it soon became apparent that stories, by definition, have omissions, since they summarise, and they are likely to have additions, since they retell. The question of which kinds of omissions and additions were appropriate came up right then and there. The question became even more pressing when I started mentoring my colleague Roman Kim to check these stories. While much has been written about guidelines for translating and checking Scripture (Beekman and Callow 1989; Barnwell 2020; Larson 1984; Hill 2011), we have not found clear guidelines for OBS yet. We decided to take on the challenge to formulate some initial guidelines on the basis of a case study.
Checking OBS differs in many respects from checking Scripture translations, including Oral Bible Translations (OBT). The latter aim at translating the Hebrew or Greek source texts completely, which means that additions and omissions are not expected to be part of the translation, unless it is a matter of making implicit information explicit or making explicit information implicit. And even these two cases are only justified in situations where the text would otherwise be misunderstood. Bible stories summarise by design, which means that some facts are not mentioned or are generalised into summary statements. The oral nature of the stories is another factor that differentiates them from regular Scripture translations. The particular use of oral stories in a given cultural context needs to be taken into account. People in the Caucasus, for instance, though well educated, frequently use oral stories to receive and share information.
This paper presents the initial guidelines that we created on the basis of part of our project. This project is called Carut, a pseudonym for a people living in the Caucasus. The project, the Carut Oral Bible Story version (COBS), contains a set of OT and NT stories. The case study presented in this paper is based on the full set (twenty-three) of OT stories as well as a few of the NT stories. Our guidelines may be helpful to other consultants who work in similar projects, and can give some insight as to how to decide whether an omission or addition is in order. Since these guidelines are based on the experience in one project, they are not comprehensive. This paper first reviews omissions, then additions, ending up with a table that summarises the guidelines.
2. Checking: omissions
In our role as consultants, we commented on everything that we felt needed discussion. Two major categories in our comments were omissions and additions. This section focuses on the different kinds of omissions that we encountered. We define an omission as something that is explicitly mentioned in the source, but is not explicitly mentioned in the resulting story. We divided up these omissions in three main subcategories: (a) those that are beneficial, (b) those that are in a grey area, and (c) those that are plainly inappropriate, because they clearly lead the listener to draw the wrong conclusions.
2.1 Omission: appropriate
Sometimes it is necessary or desirable to omit certain elements from a story, particularly considering that the idea of OBS is to summarise, which means that things are necessarily left out. The examples of this category are cases in which the consultants of the Carut project agreed that the omissions did not distort the main message of the story.
2.1.1 Testing Abraham
A first example where we felt that omissions are appropriate is from Gen 22.3:
The time reference “the next day” in the oral story seems to have omitted that it was “early.” Instead, “the next day” includes any moment of that day. The story follows the principle that what is specific may be made more generic, where this is appropriate. Since this detail contributes very little to the story’s main point (showing how Abraham was tested), we saw no problem in leaving it out.
The OBS story omits Abraham “cutting” wood. This too is summarisation, in this case by leaving out a step in a process (taking tools, selecting a tree, cutting, clearing, binding, etc.). The story states that he has firewood, implying all the prior steps in the process.
Guidelines
(1) It is possible to skip non-essential details when summarising.
(2) Steps may be omitted from a process, provided the process itself is inferable.
2.1.2. Joseph is blessed by God
When Joseph served as a slave in Potiphar’s house, God blessed him as well as Potiphar’s house. Is God given enough credit in the resulting OBS in Gen 39.4-5?
The NIV text in Genesis states that “the Lord blessed” the house of Potiphar. This does not appear literally in the oral Carut story. However, the story has reordered information, and God’s role is prominent in the earlier part, “God was with Joseph.” The listener can reasonably infer God’s role in the subsequent blessings on Potiphar’s household.
Guideline
(3) Even when information is left out, good summaries may help the listener to make the correct inferences.
2.2 Omission: grey area
There remain, of course, many cases in which there is no straightforward answer to the question whether or not an omission damages a story. Below are a few examples we encountered in the Carut project that belong to this grey area.
2.2.1 Joseph reconciled: Judah’s proposal
In their final journey to Egypt, Joseph’s brothers are reconciled with Joseph. But prior to this, Joseph tests them by hiding his divination cup in Benjamin’s bags. When the brothers are led before Joseph, Judah offers to remain in Egypt in Benjamin’s place. This information from Gen 44.33 is omitted in the OBS.
32“Your servant guaranteed the boy’s safety to my father. I said, ‘If I do not bring him back to you, I will bear the blame before you, my father, all my life!’
33“Now then, please let your servant remain here as my lord’s slave in place of the boy, and let the boy return with his brothers.” (NIV)
But my father told me that “wild animals had devoured [my] eldest son born to my beloved wife Rebekah. If something comes on my head, I cannot stand it, my grey head will go the next world.” (COBS)
Omitting this kind of information threatens to diminish the whole of the message conveyed by the story and to conceal possible inner-biblical links. Judah’s offer to take Benjamin’s place was not taken up, but much later Jesus did step in and receive a punishment he did not deserve. The idea of taking someone’s place in receiving punishment, then, is a concept that links this story with what happens later in the NT set of stories, something that the team picked up after our discussion, resulting in this amendment:
But my father told me that “wild animals had devoured [my] eldest son born to my beloved wife Rebekah. If something comes on my head, I cannot stand it, my gray head will go the next world.”
Guideline
(4) It is advisable to check whether or not information that is left out in fact forms a crucial link to the overall message.
2.3 Omission: inappropriate (distortion)
When a consultant or exegetical advisor reviews an oral story that has been created by a team, omissions will be encountered that turn out to be undesirable. What we found in the Carut case study is that, while all of the omissions distorted what the author had wanted to convey, their nature varied greatly. This section on unwanted omissions serves to illustrate these different omission types.
2.3.1 The first sin: number of punishments
The translation of Gen 3.16 is a good example of where the listener can make the wrong inferences when too much is left out.
“I will make your pains in childbearing very severe;
with painful labor you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you.” (NIV)
The phrase “when you will give birth, you will have a real hard time” is only one of the punishments that God gives the woman. Since this is the only punishment mentioned in the oral story, the listener may think that this was the only punishment given to the woman. Our suggestion to add more of the punishments was not taken up by the team in this correction, which did, however, make clear that there was more than one:
Then God gives the woman
Guideline
(5) In some cases, it is good to alert listeners to the fact that they are receiving only part of the information.
2.3.2 Isaac and Rebecca: missing link
One of the stories selected by the translation team relates that Abraham sends his main servant to the land where his relatives live, in order to find a wife for Isaac. When the servant arrives in the land, he asks God to show him the girl that should become Isaac’s wife, and he explains to God how he will try to distinguish that girl (Gen 24.14-19). The Carut OBS retained the specific request of the servant, but omitted the confirmation in Rebecca’s words:
The servant hurried to meet her and said, “Please give me a little water from your jar.”
“
After she had given him a drink, she said, “
When she filled the jug, and it came up, that servant asked her for water to drink.
The young-woman lowered the jug and gave him water.
After having given water [to him], she poured water from her jug into [the] drinking-bowl and went to bring water for the camels. (COBS)
The problem with the Carut oral translation above is that the logic of the original gets lost. It is what Rebekah says (i.e., a speech event) that will reveal her to be the woman chosen by God for Isaac. A similar problem can arise if a logically crucial action is omitted. The corrected OBS has:
When he finished his prayer, he noticed Rebecca from the other side, the granddaughter of Abraham’s brother Nahor, walking in that direction. She was a very beautiful young woman. When she filled the jug, and it came up, that servant asked her for water to drink. The young-woman lowered the jug After having given water [to him], she
Guideline
(6) An action or speech event that plays a key role in the logic of a passage should not be summarised or omitted.
2.3.3 Isaac and Rebecca: cultural mismatch
The Hebrew story gives a long list of God’s blessings on Abraham in Gen 24.35. The OBS summarises, skipping some items:
The problem here is mainly a cultural one. In biblical stories, sheep and cattle are generally important as an indicator of a person’s wealth. The other items are, arguably, less important, only testifying to Abraham’s wealth in general. But we want to retain the link to the original culture and time period, especially since the same “sheep and cattle” are also of primary importance to the receptor culture. Hence this correction:
The Lord has blessed him in everything. God gave him
Guideline
(7) It is advisable to check list summaries against the full listing of the original to be sure the important items are included.
2.3.4 Joseph serving in Potiphar’s house
Potiphar’s wife wants to sleep with Joseph, but the Carut oral story omits an important detail in Gen 39.11-12:
What is omitted is the fact that there was no one else inside the house. This is important from a cultural point of view, since we know from the Hebrew law that a minimum of two witnesses are required to testify to an offense (Deut 19.15). Here is the correction:
But one day,
Guidelines
(8) It is advisable to check whether all crucial background information is included.
2.3.5 God leads the Hebrews from Egypt
One of the stories relates that God sends Moses and Aaron to Pharaoh to perform miracles in front of him. What follows is an excerpt of that story (Exod 6.10-11; 7.8-10):
The L
So Moses and Aaron went to Pharaoh and did just as the L
In that case Aaron threw the staff that was in his hand in front of Pharaoh. And the staff turned into a snake. (COBS)
The OBS rearranges, but what it omits in this particular case is that the Lord instructed Moses and Aaron to act. Someone listening to the story may wrongly conclude that Aaron acts by himself. The reason for the wrong inference is that God (a key participant in the original story) has been left out of the chain of participants (God–Aaron–Pharaoh).
In that case,
Guideline
(9) All key agents of actions should be clearly indicated, and not omitted.
3. Checking: additions
An addition is an aspect of a story that is not explicitly mentioned in the source, but is explicitly mentioned in the resulting story. Just like the discussion on omissions in the previous section, here too we divided the types of additions into three categories: those that we felt we could allow in our project, those where we were in a grey area (since there were arguments in favour of and against approving such additions), and those where we decided we could not approve the addition for our project.
3.1 Addition: appropriate
Additions to a story can be beneficial, for instance when implicit information is made explicit. Such explications do not really add to the message of the original story, but may help the listener understand the story better. There is a potential to distort the message, so such additions should be reviewed case by case.
3.1.1 Abraham as prophet
A first example of where we agreed that it would be good to make implicit information explicit is Gen 22.3:
This particular story in Genesis does not call Abraham a prophet, but he is understood as such by Islam, which is the background for many OBS readers/listeners. The addition here is perfectly appropriate, since there already is prior Scripture where Abraham is called a prophet (Gen 20.7, where God instructs Abimelech to return Sarah to Abraham).
Guideline
(10) It can be appropriate to render explicitly information that is present in a chronologically earlier narrative.
3.1.2 Jacob needs grain
After Joseph has taken his high position in Egypt, the famine begins. The text in Genesis leaves steps unmentioned that an OBS may make explicit. Here is one of them (Gen 41.56–42.2):
When Jacob learned that there was grain in Egypt, he said to his sons, “Why do you just keep looking at each other?” He continued, “I have heard that there is grain in Egypt. Go down there and buy some for us, so that we may live and not die.” (NIV)
One day the head of the family Jacob speaks to [his] sons that “Why are you sitting? We are dying of famine. Don’t you see that the children too are hungry? I heard that there is grain in Egypt. They sell grain. They don’t let anyone return with empty hands. So, you too, get up, take money, and go there.” (COBS)
The fact that Jacob’s family was out of grain is not explicitly mentioned in Gen 42. But it is a logical conjecture, given that Jacob wants his sons to go and fetch grain in Egypt.
Guideline
(11) It can be helpful to make explicit a piece of information that is logically implied in the text.
3.2 Addition: grey area
An important area of debate in the project was when the translators felt that they needed to add certain details and/or events to a story to fill in particular gaps, that is to say, details or events that quite likely took place, but are not described in the biblical story. The consultants felt that the information that was added should at least not contradict information found in the Bible and the historical context in general. But it is not always clear how far one should or can go in adding such information.
3.2.1 Is Isaac looking for grandchildren?
Genesis 28.1-2 relates that Isaac instructs Jacob on what kind of wife he should marry. Why does he do that? Is it for the happiness of Jacob or to make sure the lineage continues?
He says: “My son, it is time for you to get married. I would like to see grandchildren from you. I would like you not to take yourself a wife from the Canaanite women/ladies. You go to the place called Mesopotamia, where earlier your grandfather the prophet Abraham lived, [go] to the house of [your] uncle Laban. Take yourself as wife there one of the young-women of your uncle Laban.” (COBS)
The oral story adds an explicit reason. Isaac wants to see grandchildren. The wish for descendants in order to preserve the family line is a motif that recurs in many biblical stories. When Isaac speaks about marriage, this cultural script is triggered, and what he “adds” in the oral story is an event missing from the Bible, but made explicit in the oral rendering. This kind of addition usually does not cause any problems, but the translators and translation consultant should double-check that the cultural script or frame employed by the oral story matches that of the biblical story.
Guideline
(12) Additions to and explicitation in stories should fit the cultural frame of the biblical story.
3.2.2 Recognise a spy by his face?
In Gen 42.7, 9-12, Joseph does not believe (or pretends not to believe) his brothers and accuses them of being spies. But it is not clear on what basis he does so.
“From the land of Canaan,” they replied, “to buy food.”
Then he remembered his dreams about them and said to them, “You are spies! You have come to see where our land is unprotected.”
Right after recognising them, Joseph especially speaks to them that, “What are you? Where have you come from?”
The brothers say that “We have come here from Canaan so as to buy grain.” Joseph says: “No. You don’t look like good people. You look like spies.”
“No!” he said to them. “You have come to see where our land is unprotected.” (NIV)
Joseph again says: “Impossible. I don’t believe you. Your faces show that you are spies. You have come to find out what the weak place of this country is.” (COBS)
One might have said that spies, by their very nature, should not be recognisable at sight. But the translation team was quite clear about their understanding of this: It is always possible to recognise a spy by his character and behaviour.
Guideline
(13) Additions/explicitation should not be based solely on the cultural practices and assumptions of the receptor.
3.2.3 Joseph’s father sends him gifts
Often the Bible only describes some steps in a logical chain of events, leaving out other steps, although these very likely would have been implied in the story. Some of these steps might need to be made explicit—either as narrated events or in the speech of characters in a story. What exactly people may have said in an event that is just implied, is, by its nature, conjecture (guesswork), but not always unwarranted. Consider this oral story account of the sons of Jacob speaking with Pharaoh in Gen 43.26-28:
When Joseph came home, they presented to him the gifts they had brought into the house, and they bowed down before him to the ground. He asked them how they were, and then he said, “How is your aged father you told me about? Is he still living?”
They replied, “Your servant our father is still alive and well.” And they bowed down, prostrating themselves before him. (NIV)
When Joseph came home, they all bowed down before Joseph. They show the things that they had brought. They say to Joseph that “these [are] gifts our father sent for you.”
Joseph asks: “How is your father? Is he alive and healthy?”
The brothers say: “Yes.” (COBS)
“They presented to him the gifts” means that they passed these gifts on to Joseph. Would they have accompanied their giving with some kind of explanation? Any answer to this question would be based on speculation. Even so, we hesitantly agreed with the addition in the Carut story. The reason for the hesitation is that the oral story uses direct speech for the brothers’ response, which means that it puts words into the mouth of the brothers. The reason the addition appeared acceptable is that we felt that the wording here is quite neutral and that there is a precedent for accompanying gift-giving with an explanation (Gen 32.19). The matter of when additions to direct speech are appropriate deserves more attention in further research.
Guideline
(14) An addition based on a reception-culture inference can only be considered if it also matches the original culture.
3.3 Addition: inappropriate
This section contains examples from the case study where additions to a story turned out to be inadvisable because they added elements to the text that were neither explicitly nor implicitly part of the text/context.
3.3.1 Cain and Abel: prior argument?
In Gen 4.4 the Lord does not accept Cain’s offering, and in vv. 6-7 warns him not to be angry. But then Cain takes Abel with him into the field and kills him (Gen 4.8):
The oral story says, “They went out to the field to sort it out.” This clearly means that they have had an argument. Nothing in the Bible hints at this, so these words had to be removed:
Then Cain tells Abel: “
Guideline
(15) It is ill-advised to add something to the text that cannot be inferred from the wider context.
3.3.2 Rebecca meets Abraham’s servant
Abraham’s servant goes to Aram Naharaim in search of a wife for Abraham’s son Isaac. He speaks with a young woman at the well, who gives him and his animals water. Then he asks for her name in Gen 24.23:
She answered him, “I am the daughter of Bethuel, the son that Milkah bore to Nahor.” (NIV)
She responds: “I am Rebecca, the granddaughter of Nahor, the brother of Ibrahim. My father’s name is Bethuel.” (COBS)
What the young woman relates in Genesis are the bare details: who her father and grandparents are. The oral story adds that Nahor is “the brother of Abraham.” There is no logical reason why she would give that information now. The team probably included it to help the listener, since the relationship between Nahor and Abraham has been mentioned in this story earlier. Since it would not make sense for Rebecca to provide this information now, it has been removed in the correction:
He asks [her]: “Whose daughter are you? Would there be found place in your house, for us to spend the night? She responds: “I am the daughter of Bethuel, the granddaughter of Nahor.” (COBS)
Guideline
(16) It is not appropriate to add something to a participant’s speech, even if true, that is part of later developments in the story.
3.3.3 Jacob a prophet?
Neither Genesis nor other parts of the Bible refer to Jacob as a prophet, whereas the Carut stories call him a prophet several times. What should a consultant advise? One might argue that using honorifics forms a bridge to the receptor-language culture. An excerpt from one of the stories (Gen 42.30-32), however, shows a situation where we felt that calling Jacob “prophet” was not appropriate. This excerpt has Jacob’s sons speaking to their father, explaining to him what had happened in Egypt:
Jacob’s sons tell their father that they told Pharaoh that Jacob (their father) is a prophet. This elevates the prophethood of Jacob to another level, since it occurs in the direct speech of his sons. Jacob did prophesy, but that was at the end of his life, when he spoke about the future of his sons (Gen 49). Even so, he was never called a prophet in the Jewish tradition. It would be misleading, then, to have the sons call their father a prophet. The corrected version now has:
They say, that “the person ruling that land spoke badly towards us. He spoke angrily to us. He called us spies. We said that ‘we are no spies, we are honest people. Our father is an
It makes sense in the situation for the brothers to call their father an honest person, since they also defend themselves as being honest people.
Guideline
(17) If honorifics are used in a particular context (Prophet Abraham, Prophet Jacob), they should not be made part of the narrative (“Jacob/Our father is our prophet”).
3.3.4 Having God promise more than he did
Exodus 6 tells how God encourages his people through Moses. The logical consequence of these promises is never mentioned explicitly, but was added in the rendering of Exod 6.6-8:
God’s promises do not mention the quality of life the Israelites will have in the promised land. He only says that they will possess the land, which is often described as “overflowing with milk and honey.” But we know from the history of Israel that the quality of their life in that land largely depended on their following God. It would seem strange to have God make a promise here about the “good” life they will have, without the usual condition of “if you diligently follow my commandments.”
The corrected COBS version removed the last sentence.
Guideline
(18) The summarised speech of a participant in a story should reflect the actual words used by that participant, and not add substantive content not found in the story.
4. Other additions that are helpful in OBS
All OBS stories need introductions and conclusions that help listeners to understand their context and background. Often, these introductions and conclusions contain details that do not belong directly to the stories themselves. Such additions do not fit the category of additions in section 3.1 because they are of a different nature. One type is the addition that does not link up with a specific verse. This holds for an introduction, but also for a conclusion that is added to a story. Another type is an addition that does link with a particular verse, but would more typically be placed in a footnote in a written translation. We observed examples from each of these categories in our case study.
4.1 Introductions
The introduction serves to connect one story to other parts of the narrative, providing needed background when the stories are not told in sequence or when time has passed since they were last heard. Here is an example:
This example introduces the story of Hagar. The team felt the need to remind the listeners that God had previously promised a son to Abraham before they proceeded with the story itself.
These reminders refresh the memory of the listener if important background information was heard in a previous story, but some time ago and possibly forgotten. It is also helpful to provide missing background information in case the current story is being listened to in isolation. These introductions would not be needed if the stories were put together into a book.
Guideline
(19) It is helpful to add an introduction that summarises previous events that are relevant for a proper understanding of the story.
4.2 Formulaic conclusions
Many stories have a very similar ending: “This is how such and such happened.” For example:
The translators see this as a very natural way to end many stories. It signals that the end of the story has been reached, and reinforces what the story was about.
Guideline
(20) The way stories are built up is culturally defined. If additional components are expected (e.g., a clear conclusion reinforcing the main point of the story), teams may consider adding such components.
4.3 Background cultural information
In some stories, the team encountered some potentially difficult concepts for listeners. These unknown ideas can confuse the audience and make them lose the thread of the narrative. These cases were rare but here is an example from a Gospel story:
This example is from the parable of the Good Samaritan. The whole parable is told by Jesus, but the team decided to interrupt the direct speech and add this relevant information. The plan is to differentiate Jesus’s narration from this background information with another voice in the recording. The listeners need to know this information to appreciate fully the point of the parable: One’s neighbour can be the least expected person. Without the added information, listeners would be able to understand the point of the story, namely, that we should help those in trouble, but the story would certainly lose its sharpness.
Guideline
(21) It is helpful to add background cultural information where unknown concepts could cause confusion.
5. Discussion
The current case study shows that oral Bible stories can contain omissions and additions with respect to the Bible source they are taken from. These omissions and additions can sometimes be perfectly legitimate, that is, when they do not distort the message of the original.
This case study of more than twenty oral stories from the Old Testament and some from the New Testament in one particular language illustrates some of the more problematic areas in the checking of oral stories. Several omissions are unwarranted when they lead the listener to make inferences that do not have a biblical basis (or are plainly incorrect). Other omissions are unwarranted when they make the listener miss out on inferences that they should or could have made. Additions are unwarranted when they introduce facts that are not only unattested in the biblical source, but are also not inferable from the biblical message at large. Other additions are unwarranted if they clash with other aspects of the story.
An important grey area that has also been illustrated by this case study is that of adding information in a story that could actually have happened and that would fit in with the culture and the time, but that simply is not attested anywhere.
The case study finished with a range of situations where additions were found to be important because they would likely help the reader greatly. These additions included, for example, story introductions, conclusions, and relevant background information. Such material eases understanding and keeps the listener from getting unnecessarily distracted by gaps in understanding.
A concern for consultants in general, but perhaps even more so in checking oral Bible stories, is to make sure that one’s checking is not subjective, ad hoc, or hermeneutically biased. This is exactly why clearer guidelines are needed to help the consultant in this important task. It may also be necessary to provide training to consultants that focuses on the specific aspects of checking oral Bible stories.
This paper is based on one case study alone. It is clear that this is only a starting point for further research. We greatly welcome more studies in other OBS projects that would add to the guidelines and lead to modification of those that we have suggested.
Footnotes
Appendix: Overview of the guidelines
Addition guidelines derived from the case study
| Type | Addition guideline |
|---|---|
| Appropriate | (10) Render explicitly information that is present in a chronologically earlier narrative
(11) Render explicitly information that is logically implied in the text |
| Grey area | (12) Add something inferable from the biblical cultural script or frame
(13) Add something because it would have been said in the context of the receptor culture assumptions and practices (14) Add something that could have been said, on the basis of a reception culture inference |
| Inadvisable | (15) Add something as historical fact if it is not inferable from the text
(16) Add something to a participant’s speech that is part of a later development in the story (17) Assign an anachronistic label to a participant (18) Add substantive content to a participant’s speech that is not found in the story |
| Helpful | (19) Summarise previous events in a story’s introduction
(20) Add components that would be expected in a story in the receptor culture without changing the actual content (e.g., a conclusion) (21) Add background information if it helps listeners understand the text |
1
Italics and bold in all NIV and COBS quotations are ours.
2
Here and in other places the English of the oral Bible stories reflects features of the receptor-language story. The use of the present tense, for instance, is one such feature. Another is the speech act, which is usually introduced as indirect speech, but where participant references are as if it were direct speech.